My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

So people earning over £80k are wealthy, unless they are JC??

321 replies

usernamealreadytaken · 15/05/2017 13:53

In an interview with Julie Etchingham, JC apparently said he's not wealthy, despite earning over £130k p/a, because of WHERE HE PUTS HIS MONEY (but he's not going in to that!). AIBU to think this is the most ridiculous statement he has managed to put out in recent weeks?

Given that Labour want the wealthiest in our society (earning over £80k) to pay more taxes, what Good Reason could he possibly have to not include himself in that bracket? Discuss :-)

OP posts:
Report
usernamealreadytaken · 21/05/2017 16:19

Lapdance

From gov.uk Most Winter Fuel Payments are paid automatically. Write to the office that pays your Winter Fuel Payment if you want to cancel it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31963099

OP posts:
Report
LapdanceShoeshine · 21/05/2017 18:42

Write? What, an actual letter? In an envelope, with a stamp on? & no paper trail? How primitive.

I have no idea which office mine comes from. I suppose if I rummaged I might find last year's letter. But if you go decline it, where does the money go?

I agree though that it's unfortunate McDonnell is so unconcerned about taking & spending it. Donating to Age Concern or spending it on food to donate to a food bank might be a better use.

Report
phlebasconsidered · 21/05/2017 19:48

For all the bleating, i am very clear that I am absolutely happy to pay higher tax once I meet Labour thresholds.

I'm a teacher. It's very unlikely that I will ever reach that threshold.

And that's the point.

Other countries manage and prosper with higher tax on the wealthy. Norway for one. Higher tax on the wealthy there is seen as investing in your country. Before I was a teacher I worked for a Norweigan million / billion aire. His employees had magnificent rights, superb maternity and paternity rights and he didn't mind at all paying taxes. I asked him about it and he said he would never have risen to achieve without the years worth of investment in taxes that paid for him to learn.

We need to have that attitude here.

Report
Badbadbunny · 22/05/2017 08:24

I asked him about it and he said he would never have risen to achieve without the years worth of investment in taxes that paid for him to learn.

Chicken and egg situation then, isn't it? Public services in the UK, particularly education, are very hit and miss. A lot of people have done well despite their schooling, rather than because of it. Personally, I think my secondary school years damaged me for life due to crap teachers who did absolutely F-all about the bullying, verbal and physical abuse I suffered - I was an A student across the board at 11, but failed all my GCEs at 16. Not a single teacher bothered to think that was strange. Not a single teacher listened when I told them about the bullying and abuse. My "education" stated when I left school and I basically taught myself, got myself through A levels, and self-studied to become a qualified accountant. The school system let me down badly so I don't have any particular affinity towards it.

I think that if the politicians want the public generally to pay more for public services, then they need to ensure that there is a measurable and obvious improvement in public services so people can see where their money has been wisely spent.

Look at Labour's NIC grabs "to save the NHS" - the money was pissed away on higher wages and posh buildings. Don't forget that Labour trebled the money spent on the NHS. The general public rightly expect service to be a lot better, but it isn't.

I believe the public will accept tax rises, but will demand value for money, efficiency, and clear improvement in services.

Report
Badbadbunny · 22/05/2017 08:35

As an example of people willing to pay more for better public services:-

Our town set up a BID (business improvement district) where the businesses within it's area agree what improvements are needed to increase trade & improve the surroundings, and pay a supplement to pay for it. It's been a spectacular success. That's because the people paying into the scheme have a say in what the money is spent on and can control the spending and efficiency, etc. For example, a few years ago, the council stopped the Christmas illuminations (basically a string of coloured bulbs!) citing the cost of £20k per year was unaffordable. The BID decided to do their own and now have a far better display for just £5k p.a. BID money has also been used for tourist signage, tidying the exteriors of empty shops and subsidising free parking. This is the same council which a few years ago spent tens of thousands on "art" in the form of a dozen trees planted upside down which rotted and fell down within a couple of years leaving nothing to show for the spending!!

Perhaps, in Sweden, their public spending is properly controlled, efficient, providing services people actually want and value, etc. Perhaps in Britain, there is a perception (rightly or wrongly) that the government will just squander the money on political vanity projects, inefficiency, waste, etc.?

Report
Dadstheworld · 22/05/2017 09:17

They already pay more tax.

Report
Dadstheworld · 22/05/2017 09:20

Oops wrong page....

Whats worrying is that this feels like a line in the sand defining the rich. I bet when the money runs low, They will just decide 50k is "rich" then 40k ......


Also Someone earning 5 time the average salary pay roughly 14 times more tax already. Something to think about.

Report
NoLotteryWinYet · 22/05/2017 10:09

yeah my main reservation about the tax rise is not this tax rise, it's that Corbyn and McDonnell's policies are so crackers that this is merely the start. If the tories or lib dems or even, the SNP, had mooted this tax rise I'd be fine with it. Corbyn's basket of policies is so crazy I could see us getting multiple tax rises in one parliament as everything unravels.

Report
LapdanceShoeshine · 22/05/2017 11:00

Which are the crazy bits?

Report
NoLotteryWinYet · 22/05/2017 11:15

let me count a few Corbyn policies I disagree with:

-Min wage hike to £10 ph by 2020 arbitrarily
IFS quotes:
The benefit from minimum wage increases is concentrated among middle-income households, not the lowest-income households. A few factors explain this. Many individuals on low wages are in middle- or high-income households as a result of the earnings of their partner; many of the lowest-income households have no-one in work at all; and low-income households that do gain are likely to see significant reductions in means-tested benefits as a result of higher wages, offsetting some of the gains.

-Free school meals across all years
Not the best use of the money.

-Free tuition - unaffordable, would rather they spent the money on primary and secondary and improving outcomes,

Labour’s Higher Education proposals will cost £8bn per year, although increase the deficit by more. Graduates who earn most in future would benefit most

election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-higher-education-proposals-will-cost-8bn-per-year-although-increase-the-deficit-by-more-graduates-who-earn-most-in-future-would-benefit-most

-Corporation tax massive hike - unprecedented.
It would represent one of the biggest single tax increases in decades.
The British system is rather less generous in the way it treats investment: we allow a smaller share of capital expenditure to be deducted from profits. Raising the headline rate to 26 per cent, whilst changing nothing else, would make the UK a less attractive place to invest.

To say nothing of the fact that there is no future proofing of affordability with higher health spending and pension spending round the corner due to our ageing population.

You can look at the IFS website for more details on all of this.

Report
usernamealreadytaken · 22/05/2017 11:17

Interesting reading phleb

August 1, 2012
Bergen, Norway

Ah, Norway. Government-loving statists love to hold this place up as a shining example that big government and high taxes are good. Free education. Free healthcare. “Happy” people.

Yes, Norway is certainly one of the wealthiest countries in the world on the basis of GDP per capita… and in a variety of international surveys, it also ranks as one of the ‘happiest’.

And yes, Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world with a total tax burden of roughly 45% of GDP– almost 4x Hong Kong and nearly twice the US.

VAT here is a whopping 25%. Personal income tax rates border 55%. Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78%. Norway even has a direct WEALTH TAX.

This place is about as socialist as it gets. The Norwegian tax authority’s own website even states, “The Norwegian tax system is based on the principle that everybody should pay tax according to their means and receive services according to their needs.”

It’s as if Karl Marx himself wrote the country’s tax policy.

Further, when you step back and look at the Norwegian economy, you’ll see that the state drives nearly all of it. The Norwegian government is the controlling shareholder in 8 out of the top 10 employers in the country– companies like Statoil, DNB, Norsk Hydro, etc.

But since everyone seems to agree that Norwegians are so ‘happy’ and have such a high standard of living, is this central economic planning really so bad?

Let’s first dispel this ‘happy’ nonsense.

It goes without saying that when you ask people who receive generous benefits from the government whether they’re happy, chances are high they’ll say yes.

But Norwegian happiness goes much deeper into human psyche and how we naturally compare ourselves to others in our peer group.

For example, when a childhood friend goes from rags to riches, people often feel extreme envy and reflect negatively on their own comparative lack of success.

Norway has created a system that makes it virtually impossible to pull ahead of your peers financially. People are excused for not working hard and squandering the opportunities they could have grabbed.

Everyone is the same status, and such equality imbues a unique socialist variety of happiness.

This attitude has been deeply inculcated in Norwegian society through what’s known as Jante Law; this is an informal dictate which essentially says ‘You’re only as good as everyone else.’

Consequently, Norwegian culture limits aspirations of achievement. Workers come to the office, punch a clock, shuffle papers, and go home. There is no cultural drive to work hard and get promoted. Work is viewed as what you have to do for 30% of your life, not an opportunity to achieve more and do something that actually matters.

As an example, the office complex across from my hotel room was a ghost town by 5:06pm yesterday afternoon. And work hours in general here have declined steadily over past decades to just 31 hours per week.




The office across from my hotel room at 5:06pm yesterday. Ghost town.

It shows. How many Norwegian companies can you name? How many revolutionary products and services come out of Norway? Practically none.

So, yes, people are ‘happy’ here. Happy because the system incentivizes underachievement and leisure without the nasty consequence of watching a peer surge ahead financially.

For most people under the bell curve, this is a suitable arrangement. Bureaucrats call this happiness. Maybe so, but it’s at the expense of someone else’s potential.

The other ridiculous assertion is that Norwegians get ‘a lot of value’ for what they pay in taxes.

To be clear, the average Norwegian household pays roughly $70,000 per year in tax. Including the state’s oil income, government tax revenue exceeds $100,000 per household.

Yes, they get free healthcare, free education, and pretty fountains. But for $100,000 per year? The value they get for what they pay is pitiful.

You could pay privately for the most expensive health plans and private schools in the world and still have tens of thousands of dollars in walking around money.

Not to mention, taxes have really driven up the cost of living. It is no coincidence that Norway is simultaneously the most heavily taxed AND most expensive country in the world.

Because of this, Norwegians have limited after-tax discretionary spending cash. Sure they have ‘free’ healthcare, but when dinner for two costs an arm and a leg, people scale back their activities.

This is by design. In keeping people at the same level, Norwegian society has lowered the bar for everyone. There is limited economic freedom to achieve more.

Sure, the system gives them lots of leisure time to enjoy… but this is not necessarily a choice they make freely, rather the only choice they have.

Now, even if this lack of economic freedom seems a reasonable price to pay for national healthcare… even if tamed aspirations and an uninspired career are valid trade-offs for more leisure and less hard work… Norway is not a replicable model.

People who think that ‘we should just be like Norway’ are missing an even greater point: all of this central planning is made possible by huge oil reserves… and for that matter, oil reserves that are DECADES past their peak production.

Norway’s model is not only unreplicable in most other countries, it is also unsustainable.

Mediocrity works great when you can fool society into accepting it and have the oil wealth to finance it. But the true path to prosperity is, and always will be, a system based on economic freedom that rewards hard work, creativity, and achievement.

OP posts:
Report
LapdanceShoeshine · 22/05/2017 11:29

How many children in poverty in Norway?

Report
Headofthehive55 · 23/05/2017 18:56

I can see how making people equal has detrimental effects on bith productivity and effort.

My DD does a course for which they have changed the system in getting jobs. You now apply centrally and most people are guaranteed a job. However, extras like work experience are not taken into account.

So DD and friends were busy making themselves employable doing extra curricular stuff, working hard, learning, developing themselves etc. Now with the new system there really is no need. DDs friends are now laughing at her for making an effort...and they have stopped bothering.

Report
Badbadbunny · 24/05/2017 08:36

How many children in poverty in Norway?

Using the same formula as the UK, it will be a similar percentage to the UK. That's the thing with statistics! There'll always be approx half the people below average, and a quarter in the lower quartile, etc. In the UK the number of kids in poverty will increase if the average income increases because it's a relative measure of what everyone earns.

Report
JanetBrown2015 · 24/05/2017 10:27

Which is why I always think absolute poverty measures are better than relative.

Somweone wrote above pn the UK "Also Someone earning 5 time the average salary pay roughly 14 times more tax already. Something to think about." A recent study shows there ia 1-12 different but after benefits go to the poor and the rich in the Uk are taxed quite heavily that comes down to 1 - 4 which is not that unequal. I have never paid as much tax in the UK as I do at the moment.

Report
citroenpresse · 24/05/2017 10:41

nolottery re Corbyn proposals. Seeing higher corporation tax as a disincentive to invest...that's just one factor. I live in Amsterdam and liveability is the biggest factor now in terms of inward investment. Employment for families and all round quality of life. Education, health etc Would much prefer to live in a society paying a living wage rather than benefits.

Report
Slarti · 24/05/2017 12:32

Whats worrying is that this feels like a line in the sand defining the rich. I bet when the money runs low, They will just decide 50k is "rich" then 40k

You mean adjusting taxation to reflect the spending needs of the country? If that time came and the adjustments were costed and justified what would be the argument against it? "I just wanted others to pay?"

Report
Badbadbunny · 24/05/2017 12:46

You mean adjusting taxation to reflect the spending needs of the country? If that time came and the adjustments were costed and justified what would be the argument against it? "I just wanted others to pay?"

Even more will bugger off abroad and not pay anything to UK plc yet reap the rewards of the UK. Just look at the sheer number of film stars, pop stars, TV personalities, sports personalities, etc., who are no longer UK tax resident, but who continue to enjoy the earnings derived from the UK!! In the 70's, it was authors who moved abroad to avoid the punitive taxes. Keep raising taxes and there'll be no higher earners left - only those who physically have to be here. Do you really believe that pop stars and film stars move to Switzerland "for artistic reasons"!!! All the hate and vitriol is directed as business owners, but far, far, higher amounts of tax are "avoided" by the sheer number of your favourite actors, sportsmen, pop stars and tv presenters who are just taking the mickey by flying in and out for short bursts to stay outside the UK for long enough. We've had protests against Starbucks, etc., so let's have protests outside the BBC and at film premiers and the olympics!

Report
citroenpresse · 24/05/2017 13:29

Goes for infrastructure too. I discovered yesterday a Dutch firm is a big investor in Northern Rail (amongst other networks) in the UK. Hoovers up huge profits and dividends some of which must come back to NL. v. high progressive tax system here but (nationalised) rail where the government runs the rails and the passenter network is run on a commercial basis.

Report
Kursk · 24/05/2017 14:30

usernamealreadytaken

Very interesting post on Norway. It does generally seem that they have operated for "If the poor can't be rich, then everyone can be poor"

The Scandinavian countries benefit from having a small population. The U.K. Is massively overpopulated, the country's landmass can sustainability support 5-6 million people.

Report
usernamealreadytaken · 24/05/2017 20:52

Yes, I think the Norway/Scandinavian model can maybe only work as their populations are relatively small and their inherent wealth so big, due in part to oil but also to long term fiscal planning and saving reserves.

OP posts:
Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.